Twenty eight of the 55 African states are signatories to the protocol creating the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, but only seven countries have made the declaration allowing their citizens to file a case with the Court once they have exhausted local channels. Why is there a delay by countries in making that declaration?

The lack of political will among the heads of state to ratify the declaration has made it difficult for the citizens of the respective countries to access the court on matters touching on human rights violations once they have exhausted their local legal remedies.

East Africans and Africans in general should know that this court exists to render justice to whomever justice is denied. They should, therefore, put pressure on their governments to make the declarations.

How would you rate the court’s performance since its inception in 2004?

Since it started its operations, 38 applications have been filed in the court. There have been 10 judgments rendered, four cases have been referred to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights based in Banjul, Gambia, nine cases have been struck out while 15 cases are pending.

Unfortunately, the majority of cases received by the court are either filed against states that have not ratified the protocol or are brought by individuals and members of the civil society against states that have not deposited the declaration that would allow them to directly file claims against these states.

The cases in the court can be filed by the African Union Commission, a state party or African inter-governmental organisations.

If the court were set up to serve citizens of Africa, why is it that they have to depend on government declarations to access it?

The governments know that they have to make the declarations because the people who formulated the protocol are the heads of state themselves. But it is a problem that can only be rectified if the protocol is changed.

We have tried to canvass for the deletion of Article 34 (6), which outlines this declaration, but again, it is the prerequisite of the heads of state to take such action. If the heads of state are not prepared to make the declaration, then I don’t see how they would be willing to delete it.

There is also the issue of the appointment of judges by the same governments the court is supposed to watch over. How independent is the court then?

It doesn’t interfere with our independence because, if there is a case against a certain country, the judge coming from that country is excluded from the proceedings.

So the judges who are going to make the decisions are not bothered about the consequences from that country. And, even at the domestic level, judges are being appointed by the executive. The problem is that judges must have the moral strength to be independent.

The judges must have the moral fibre to make decisions based on what the law says. Being elected by politicians does not affect our independence.

The Malabo AU summit in July last year resolved to expand the court’s jurisdiction to include international crimes. Is the court ready for such a mandate?

Yes, the court can handle the criminal jurisdiction if it is given the facilities. But it all depends on when the Malabo Protocol comes into force, because it requires 15 ratifications. So far, only four countries — Benin, Guinea Bissau, Kenya and Mauritania — have signed the International Crimes Protocol.

The AU will have to provide for the court to deal with the new structures and the expanded mandate. At the moment, the court is only dealing with human-rights cases.

What is the state of funding for the court?

We depend on money from the African Union, which is not sufficient. Our annual budget is $8 billion and there are many operations we wish we could perform but we are unable to due to the lack of funds. For instance, we need more lawyers, more officials, vehicles and computers. We could work well with $30 billion.

Human rights abuses are a major problem in Africa. How can the court alter the situation?

The court is doing its best to ensure that human rights abuses and the denial of fundamental rights are reduced to a bare minimum. If we have more sensitisation and people become more aware of their rights then it will help in minimising the abuses and deprivation of people’s rights.

Also, if the individuals are given the right to access the court — though a declaration — then it would also ensure that human rights abuses become crimes of the past.